Operations // Identity & Access Management
1/29/2014
09:08 AM
Bob Covello
Bob Covello
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail

The Scariest End-User Security Question: What Changed?

Hitting employees over the head with fear, uncertainty, and doubt does little to help protect them from security threats. Is multi-factor authentication "by force" a better approach?

Comment  | 
Print  | 
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
1/30/2014 | 11:03:20 AM
Re: Too optimistic about multi-factor authentication 'by force'
That might work for me if my cat cooperates!
Bob Covello
50%
50%
Bob Covello,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/30/2014 | 10:58:57 AM
Re: Too optimistic about multi-factor authentication 'by force'
"I tried once and forgot the password" - GASP!

One person submitted this method of never losing the password: He had the password embossed on a dog tag that was then placed on the neck of his Doberman.  How's THAT for a level of security?

 
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
1/30/2014 | 10:49:40 AM
Re: Too optimistic about multi-factor authentication 'by force'
You make a good point about the Lost / Stolen / Broken / Drowned device. As for password managers, (embarassingly painful admission) I tried one once and then forgot the password. 
Bob Covello
50%
50%
Bob Covello,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/30/2014 | 10:45:37 AM
Re: Too optimistic about multi-factor authentication 'by force'
Marilyn:

I agree in part with the statement that "everyone" has a cell phone, but in the many years that I have been working supporting those mobile devices, the Lost / Stolen / Broken / Drowned devices exceeds the number of retained devices.

No one can afford to carry two phones simply to have a backup for authentication, but for a small fee, one can register multiple Yubikey devices on the same account. 

I hope you don't mind my constant mention of the Yubikey device, but it just seems to work perfectly when coupled with the correct password manager.

Password manager??  That is a topic of another discussion ...

 
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
1/30/2014 | 10:08:15 AM
Re: Too optimistic about multi-factor authentication 'by force'
Bob, I think the ubiquitous cell-phone is perfect as a Multi-factor authentication device. Everyone has one! What's your issue with them. 
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
1/30/2014 | 10:05:50 AM
Re: Too optimistic about multi-factor authentication 'by force'
So as long as the losses are lower than the cost of doing things right, people will continue to have security issues over and over again.

Clement, I can't disagree with your argument about the ROI on security investements. It's the reason Target backed backed off its endorsement of smart cards a decade ago. But just last week Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel called on other retailers and banks to push for EMV adoption. Will anything change? I don't know but I certainly hope so. 
Bob Covello
50%
50%
Bob Covello,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/29/2014 | 12:18:24 PM
Re: Too optimistic about multi-factor authentication 'by force'
Marilyn:

Two things are different now: First is the amazing volume of compromises that we have been witnessing.
Second: up until a few years ago, most folks did not carry a 2nd Factor authenticator with them. 
I am not a strong supporter of the cell-phone as a multi-factor device, but one cannot deny the behavioral change it has caused. I am challenged to find anyone who is without a cell-phone.
(I prefer a one-time-password generator such as the Yubico Yubikey - smaller than a cell phone and way more durable, but not in universal use YET.)
Bob Covello
50%
50%
Bob Covello,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/29/2014 | 11:59:26 AM
Re: Too optimistic about multi-factor authentication 'by force'
Clement:

Thanks for your thoughful response.

I am confident that the USA will soon be changing their credit card technology, as there will start to be a public outcry.  The idea that a person cannot buy something as simple as a pair of socks at Target, or a glue stick at Michael's without putting their identity at risk will begin to have an impact.  There I go being an optimist again!

For any of the readers who are not familiar with Clement, he is a MASTER at security-related information.  His tireless efforts at educating others is legendary, and his web site is an essential tool for anyone who wants to pass any InfoSec Exam.  https://www.cccure.com/cart/

I am flattered and honored to be in such good company!

 
clementdupuis
50%
50%
clementdupuis,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/29/2014 | 10:44:02 AM
Re: Too optimistic about multi-factor authentication 'by force'
Good day Bob,

The problem is not one of technology, the problem is one of attitude toward security.

Security should be risk based, however today in the USA it is based on  total loss versus cost of doing things right.   So as long as the losses are lower than the cost of doing things right, people will continue to have security issues over and over again.


The use of taken based authentication tools have been used in Europe for years, I am talking more than a decade in most countries.  It is only catching up in North America.

We bitch about card theft, but yet we still dont have chip enabled cards which would greatly help in such cases.   Once again cost of card replacement versus potential losses. 

Answering your question:  What has changed?  When I look at computer security nothing has changed and it is unlikely to change quickly in the future.  History is repeating itself over and over again.  You just change the name of the company that was the victim and the reminder of the text would still apply.


Best regard

Clement

 

 
Drew Conry-Murray
50%
50%
Drew Conry-Murray,
User Rank: Ninja
1/29/2014 | 10:32:31 AM
Re: Too optimistic about multi-factor authentication 'by force'
I think multi-factor authentication for consumers is a good idea, and mobile phones make it easier because that can serve as a second factor (the standard user-name/password is something you know, and the phone is something you have). The provider can send a text message with a code that the user can enter into a site, whether as part of the log-in or for something like requesting a password change. It's not perfect, but it's much more manageable for the consumer than having to juggle a bunch of hardware tokens or waiting for every computing device to come with a fingerprint reader.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-2184
Published: 2015-03-27
Movable Type before 5.2.6 does not properly use the Storable::thaw function, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via the comment_state parameter.

CVE-2014-3619
Published: 2015-03-27
The __socket_proto_state_machine function in GlusterFS 3.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) via a "00000000" fragment header.

CVE-2014-8121
Published: 2015-03-27
DB_LOOKUP in nss_files/files-XXX.c in the Name Service Switch (NSS) in GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) 2.21 and earlier does not properly check if a file is open, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) by performing a look-up while the database is iterated over...

CVE-2014-9712
Published: 2015-03-27
Websense TRITON V-Series appliances before 7.8.3 Hotfix 03 and 7.8.4 before Hotfix 01 allows remote administrators to read arbitrary files and obtain passwords via a crafted path.

CVE-2015-0658
Published: 2015-03-27
The DHCP implementation in the PowerOn Auto Provisioning (POAP) feature in Cisco NX-OS does not properly restrict the initialization process, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands as root by sending crafted response packets on the local network, aka Bug ID CSCur14589.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Good hackers--aka security researchers--are worried about the possible legal and professional ramifications of President Obama's new proposed crackdown on cyber criminals.